[kka25]

When debating, would it be misleading/wrong to generalize your arguments such as:
"Most people would <something to agree/disagree>"
"Everyone has in the opinion <some opinion(s)>"
"Majority of the people will say <say something>"

and some other generalized sentences. I know that generalization would help in reducing unnecessary details but sometimes, the generalization process has reduced the arguments to a form that has lost the essential details in itself. In my view as well, it could mislead people, for example the given examples above:

Most people -> How many? Who are these people?
Everyone -> Who's everyone?
Majority -> How do you calculate the majority? Against who?

[Kosmos]

It depends because that's also an argument from authority, just because most people support it does not mean it's true, i.e. that the majority of people believed the earth was flat at a certain time but is not true.

[Carter78]

From the start.

[kka25]

(Original post by Kosmos)
It depends because that's also an argument from authority

Is that bad?

(Original post by Carter78)
From the start.

Care to elaborate?

[King Kebab]

There may not be enough evidence to prove that the generalizations you assert are in fact true therefore I think it is wrong to use them.

[Kosmos]

An argument from authority is bad because it's asserting that if most people believe it, it must be true. But that is not true of course, it should be based on evidence rather than resorting to the following.

Another example: "Most people believe that tomatoes are vegetables therefore it shows that they are."

[Zakakiragibson]

Always... Unless you're a minority.

[Huz]

(Original post by kka25)
When debating, would it be misleading/wrong to generalize your arguments such as:
"Most people would <something to agree/disagree>"
"Everyone has in the opinion <some opinion(s)>"
"Majority of the people will say <say something>"

and some other generalized sentences. I know that generalization would help in reducing unnecessary details but sometimes, the generalization process has reduced the arguments to a form that has lost the essential details in itself. In my view as well, it could mislead people, for example the given examples above:

Most people -> How many? Who are these people?
Everyone -> Who's everyone?
Majority -> How do you calculate the majority? Against who?

Everybody will stereotype. I could say most people are decent human beings. Most people will agree with that, surely.

[kka25]

(Original post by King Kebab)
There may not be enough evidence to prove that the generalizations you assert are in fact true therefore I think it is wrong to use them.

Alright; would it be fair then if I inquire the person who say such things as so; "You said 'most' just now; how many are we talking here?"

or

"Everybody? Who's everybody?"

I was talking to my supervisor and I told her that a paper used the word 'most of the people' under their findings and I was not happy with it since 'most' is rather vague - it seems there's no statistical/numerical data to support how many of this 'most' + <things> when the findings were written.

[King Kebab]

(Original post by kka25)
Alright; would it be fair then if I inquire the person who say such things as so; "You said 'most' just now; how many are we talking here?"

or

"Everybody? Who's everybody?"

I was talking to my supervisor and I told her that a paper used the word 'most of the people' under their findings and I was not happy with it since 'most' is rather vague - it seems there's no statistical/numerical data to support how many of this 'most' + <things> when the findings were written.

Yes. I usually do that to the person who used the generalizations when I can be bothered.

[Carter78]

(Original post by kka25)

Care to elaborate?

No, not really.

I'm not being obtuse either, I just think that making a generalisation about a group of people fails to solve the issues at hand, nor do generalisations make for healthy debate.